KNOWLEDGE and JUSTICE

summary of THREE DOGMAS in MODERN PHILOSOPHY



We call the principles of Subjectivism, Holism, and Descriptionalism, as the “three dogmas of modern philosophy”.  We can see a complete structure of these dogmas in the “Wisdom-Library Theory”.  It is an ideal kind of library that preserves, accumulates and evolves all the wisdom of mankind within the general form of language.  However, first, even such a super-subject as the “Wisdom-Library” cannot exempt from the self-righteousness problem of the subject.  Intending the whole consistency, it falls rather deeper into the problem.  Second, there is much silence-wisdom that is never talked out, but supporting our daily lives, although such “Wisdom-Library” is not able to deal with it.  Third, individual persons maintain the “Wisdom-Library” so partially that its whole consistency and direct development are never guaranteed.



However, a ‘description’ does not depend on the correspondence with the reference, but on the same reaction of the listeners as the reference so that we are able to accept it sufficiently as a speech-act to change the action of the listeners as well as the described reference itself.  Also, although the illusion as if there were the ‘whole’ wisdom somewhere should be denied indeed, yet we need to consider it moderately to understand the possibility of the (mis)understanding of the listeners.  Furthermore, a ‘subject’ is not able to be the ground of all things, nevertheless, it is the status of the narrator as the owner of the authority and responsibility of the speech-act.  And who judges an object is judged oneself about the personality of the judge-act.  Then, trying to be judged ourselves by the whole world, we are able to show the whole world as a mirror inversely.


summary of JUSTICE as FOLLY



Reviving the “Methodical Contract Theory”, Rawls conceptualized ‘justice’ with “the ‘Fairness Principle”.  It is valuable as a lodestar to solve our problem of the present age, namely the compatibility of contradicting liberty and equality.  However, we cannot actually derive ‘justice’ from it because we have also the liberty not to comply it.  Therefore, Rawls says that we need sanctions and compulsions against an ‘egoist’.  However, if we do something under menace, is it able to be ‘justice’?  Contrarily, if someone is not an ‘egoist’, namely if he/she does a ‘justice’, ignoring his/her own interest, then it is rather unnatural and irrational folly.  There is “the Courage Principle” here that makes us true social-comrades.  For this “Practical Contract”, people have to gamble themselves.  Nevertheless, we do it because ‘justice’ is necessary for our own happiness.